382 D. Prain — Some additional Leguminosge. [No. 2, 



Wallich's name has been deliberately abandoned, partly becanse by so doing it 

 is possible to conserve the oldest trivial epithet, under which Dr. Roxburgh charac- 

 terised the plant more accm-ately than auy subsequent author has been able to, 

 but mainly because it is only by so doing that one can emphasise the need there is 

 for a thorough change in our conception of the species of Uraria. 



56. Uraria neglecta Prain; stems erect, leaflets large oblong not 

 cordate, racemes long dense cylindrical, lower calyx-teeth subequal. 

 Uraria lagopodioides Wall, in part (Gat. 5675). U. hamosa Wall, in 

 part (Cat. 5681 C.) U. lagopoides Boyle, III. Him. PI. t. 33, f. 1. U. 

 lagopus Boyle, III. Him. PL 201 ; Bak. in Flor. Brit. Ind. ii. 156 in part, 

 not of DC. 



Kamaon ; Blinkivorth ! Vicary ! King ! Duthie ! Gamble ! Kangra, 

 Stolicka ! Darmsala, Clarke ! Duars ; Heawood ! Assam ; Masters ! 

 Bengal ; Kurz ! Clarke ! Mishmi ; Griffith ! 



Branches woody slender shortly pubescent. Leaves as in U. hamosa. Racemes 

 exactly as in U. lagopus but with bracts quite as in U. hamosa ; pedicels 2-3 times 

 the calyx, densely crinite. Calyx £-£ in. Corolla purple, little exserted. Joints 2-6, 

 pale to lead-coloured polished. 



This is in reality one of the best characterised species in this troublesome genus. 

 Its characters, as the above description shows, make it intermediate between U. 

 lagopus of which it has the inflorescence, and U. hamosa of which it has the bracts 

 and foliage. It agrees, as a matter of fact, in many more points with U. hamosa, 

 with which Dr. Wallich wished to associate it, than with U. lagopus to which it 

 has been referred by subsequent botanists. The pods are more like those of U. 

 hamosa than those of U. lagopus, but they are glabrous, whereas in both these species 

 the pods are hirsute. Dr. Royle has figured the plant as U. lagopoides, and in the 

 text has referred it, equally erroneously, to U. lagopus ; the F. B. I. account of the 

 genus omits all reference to Royle's names or plate. 



6. Uraria hamosa Wall. 



This is Doodia hamosa Roxb. As in the case of D. lagopodioides which, not 

 recognising it, Wallich issued as U. retusa and D. alopecuroides which, not recog- 

 nising it, ho issued as U. repanda, so, not recognising D. hamosa, Wallich issued it as 

 U. leptostachya. And just as Wallich mistook U. lagopus for U. lagopoides, so he mis- 

 took the species just described as U. neglecta for U. hamosa. By a happy accident, 

 however, he did not always recognise his own U. leptostachya, and as he has chanced 

 to issue one gathering of it (his Cat. n. 5681 B.) along with the plant that he sup- 

 posed to bo U. hamosa, Dr. Wight and after him Mr. Baker, have been able to employ 

 this name and thus to conserve Roxburgh's trivial epithet for the species. 



Wight and Arnott in their Prodr. 222 have not made any observation on the 

 Wallichian confusion, the detection and elucidation of which we owe to Mr. Baker. 



To the synonyms of U. hamosa should be added Doodia simplicifolia Roxb. 

 from Chittagong which is a state of this species with leaves simple and acute at the 

 apex, as they often are, instead of obtuse ; also Uraria lagopus var. polysperma O. 

 Kuntze, a reduction that it would have been impossible to suggest, so different is this 

 plant from U. lagopus, wero not authentic specimens of Kuntze's n. 6520, so named, 

 before the writer. 



